A
AaronAgassi
Guest
teach, again, indeed, the fiction writing was only one concrete example, as per your request. And I would welcome your input to my activist proposals on FoolQuest.com
And I took jales question as broadly hypothetical generality.
Indeed, in ever defining the different life you'd rather be living, is it possible to name or to describe the stimulus or interaction that you are missing? Is it effable? Are there any clues whatsoever? Indeed, exactly where and how does it obstruct you from whatever kind of social functionality?
You aren't still talking about your love life, are you, teach? If you are, then you can either confront your poorly sublimated sexual frustration or else simply join a celibate Christian dating club wherein your own conflicted goals and misguided scruples are shared. Or is it more complicated?
In order to live in a less sexually stimulating society, there can be no alternative but to retreat from the social mainstream, sacrificing all of it's familiar comforts as well. Otherwise, there can be no graceful alternative but to seek some inner peace with media sleaze saturation and your fornicating neighbors.
It may interest you to hear, as have I only the other day, that in a Quaker community somewhat proximate to my location, a crisis of conscience is coming to a head as their annual meeting comes nigh. To wit: homosexuality. On the one hand, homosexuality is explicitly an abomination in the Bible. Nevertheless, just such bigotry offends against the Quaker's ideals and benevolent mission of ongoing social work. My point is that any prudery must eventually conflict with an imperative of compassionate nature.
lonelygirl, honestly it has never occurred to me to come between you and anyone else. But I suppose that explains your flames. And if you might be interested in my fiction writing workshop, you are very welcome, bur enough, no more flaming, please. And I'd welcome the participation of an experienced entrepreneur. But again, no more flaming!
Even failing impeachment, clearly the Republicans are out next election. Alas, even the Progressive Democrats are really only so progressive. But at least they fight back at all. So the only thing we can hope for, at least, is anyone but Hillary! If you are interested, lonelygirl, I might share with you my simple idea how the Democrats could easily recruit armies of the very most capable activists, if only they really where more interested in broadening their tent as they pretend. Unless, of course, I'm still boring you.
Alas, I have found myself frustrated and yes, lonely, trying to become more politically active. I despair of ever getting any input. I have discovered that people who have worked hard for years, still are simply not listened to within their own ranks. And so, I have drifted away already some time ago.
Alas, when they proclaim: "There is a place for you at our table" what they really mean is: "Join us comrade. -Or **** off!" They simply want bodies.
And of course, it also hardly helps that I so loath and detest that vicious fraud Noam Chomsky who is so lionized.
And I took jales question as broadly hypothetical generality.
Indeed, in ever defining the different life you'd rather be living, is it possible to name or to describe the stimulus or interaction that you are missing? Is it effable? Are there any clues whatsoever? Indeed, exactly where and how does it obstruct you from whatever kind of social functionality?
You aren't still talking about your love life, are you, teach? If you are, then you can either confront your poorly sublimated sexual frustration or else simply join a celibate Christian dating club wherein your own conflicted goals and misguided scruples are shared. Or is it more complicated?
In order to live in a less sexually stimulating society, there can be no alternative but to retreat from the social mainstream, sacrificing all of it's familiar comforts as well. Otherwise, there can be no graceful alternative but to seek some inner peace with media sleaze saturation and your fornicating neighbors.
It may interest you to hear, as have I only the other day, that in a Quaker community somewhat proximate to my location, a crisis of conscience is coming to a head as their annual meeting comes nigh. To wit: homosexuality. On the one hand, homosexuality is explicitly an abomination in the Bible. Nevertheless, just such bigotry offends against the Quaker's ideals and benevolent mission of ongoing social work. My point is that any prudery must eventually conflict with an imperative of compassionate nature.
lonelygirl, honestly it has never occurred to me to come between you and anyone else. But I suppose that explains your flames. And if you might be interested in my fiction writing workshop, you are very welcome, bur enough, no more flaming, please. And I'd welcome the participation of an experienced entrepreneur. But again, no more flaming!
Even failing impeachment, clearly the Republicans are out next election. Alas, even the Progressive Democrats are really only so progressive. But at least they fight back at all. So the only thing we can hope for, at least, is anyone but Hillary! If you are interested, lonelygirl, I might share with you my simple idea how the Democrats could easily recruit armies of the very most capable activists, if only they really where more interested in broadening their tent as they pretend. Unless, of course, I'm still boring you.
Alas, I have found myself frustrated and yes, lonely, trying to become more politically active. I despair of ever getting any input. I have discovered that people who have worked hard for years, still are simply not listened to within their own ranks. And so, I have drifted away already some time ago.
Alas, when they proclaim: "There is a place for you at our table" what they really mean is: "Join us comrade. -Or **** off!" They simply want bodies.
And of course, it also hardly helps that I so loath and detest that vicious fraud Noam Chomsky who is so lionized.
